However, this is a simulation and with that the constraints and randomness of the variables will over many runs, highlight if there are any aspects that are overlooked.
Looking at this run, level of wobble seems to be overly bearing with noticeable patterns that for me would question the model.
That and as a kid, we had a grass hill of about 500m in length and a mild graduand and fairly flat that you could ride a bike upon. I would go down it, side straddle my bike, step off and see how far I could run alongside my bike and get back on. Yes there was accidents, but I was a kid, nothing beyond a bruise doing this. I would say being conservative, I easily managed 25 meters. Now this was on a hill, more momentum to start with and the big factor, on grass.
Yet I look at the model runs and see very little running straight down. I would factor in the model has a fixed initial momentum, and a random increasing wobble. This would play out with the pattern being seen.
What's needed now is for this to be done 800 times for real. Even with a static push, factors would come into play. Such as dust build up, temperature changes, humidity can all have a small factor in the outcome.
Which highlights a big area with simulation and real runs comparisons. Simulations will all those nuances chaos factors as static and as if all runs happen at the same point in time. That's hard to repeat for real for comparison. Which makes it hard in nailing all those small areas that make small, but noticeable effects over time.
With that, is the problem a fractal? In that the more you look into all factors that affect it, you end up zooming into a whole new area of factors that affect that factor.
Does it have symmetry, yes.
However, this is a simulation and with that the constraints and randomness of the variables will over many runs, highlight if there are any aspects that are overlooked.
Looking at this run, level of wobble seems to be overly bearing with noticeable patterns that for me would question the model.
That and as a kid, we had a grass hill of about 500m in length and a mild graduand and fairly flat that you could ride a bike upon. I would go down it, side straddle my bike, step off and see how far I could run alongside my bike and get back on. Yes there was accidents, but I was a kid, nothing beyond a bruise doing this. I would say being conservative, I easily managed 25 meters. Now this was on a hill, more momentum to start with and the big factor, on grass.
Yet I look at the model runs and see very little running straight down. I would factor in the model has a fixed initial momentum, and a random increasing wobble. This would play out with the pattern being seen.
What's needed now is for this to be done 800 times for real. Even with a static push, factors would come into play. Such as dust build up, temperature changes, humidity can all have a small factor in the outcome.
Which highlights a big area with simulation and real runs comparisons. Simulations will all those nuances chaos factors as static and as if all runs happen at the same point in time. That's hard to repeat for real for comparison. Which makes it hard in nailing all those small areas that make small, but noticeable effects over time.
With that, is the problem a fractal? In that the more you look into all factors that affect it, you end up zooming into a whole new area of factors that affect that factor.